No Single Player offline Mode then?

[vonFelty]

Right I'm going to call it a night here.

But I think this image can pretty sum up this whole thread for me

Calling ED an MMO is laughable.

 

[the darkwalker]

Right I'm going to call it a night here.

But I think this image can pretty sum up this whole thread for me

and this link sums up what's happening for real...https://www.facebook.com/pcgamermagazine/posts/10153347197408079
hint: take a look at the comments...

 

[LoSt]

Loss of future sales. I'm not saying that FD will go under because they'll be missing those sales, but dropping Off-line will cost them a few million in the long run. I know from experience that news of features that are absent goes much faster than news about what's in. In fact, one of the first questions I usually see in discussions amongst my own circle of gamingbuddies is "What isn't there?"

Another thing that's not smart is not realising that a good group of people are here because Star Citizen was not suitable for them (Always online from the start.), and so they opted to back the next best thing. FD offered that one thing that would've set Elite squarely apart, a thing that they could've used to their advantage. The power of having that one little thing over the competition has been sqaundered in my opinion.
.

Just want to clarify that SC and "online" still include the ability to host a private server (ie. on your game box). At least at this point in time.

 

[Titus Balls]

Loss of future sales. I'm not saying that FD will go under because they'll be missing those sales, but dropping Off-line will cost them a few million in the long run. I know from experience that news of features that are absent goes much faster than news about what's in. In fact, one of the first questions I usually see in discussions amongst my own circle of gamingbuddies is "What isn't there?"

Another thing that's not smart is not realising that a good group of people are here because Star Citizen was not suitable for them (Always online from the start.), and so they opted to back the next best thing. FD offered that one thing that would've set Elite squarely apart, a thing that they could've used to their advantage. The power of having that one little thing over the competition has been sqaundered in my opinion.

Apart from other considerations, FD gave away their advantage. And factor into that the people who are on the fence on whether to buy SC or ED, what do you think they'll go for when the bad press about FD's move gets real traction? FD made the decision for them.

Think a bit longer on the topic. FD didn't just inconvenience a vocal minority, they've hurt themselves more than that they've hurt the off-line crowd. So close to the finish line in a period where good press is worth more than it's weight in gold, they throw sand in their own machinery. I don't understand it all.

I think you might be over-estimating the % of people who care about an offline single player mode only in this game.

I'm not saying it's not sizable but I very much doubt it's anywhere near a few million to them. If this straw poll is anything to go by https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59074

Also, events like this don't tend to hang around too long - sure there are people on here who won't forget but most gamers will jump on the next controversy and leave this one behind.

To add to this, I find the grandiloquence on the forums that Frontier will "crash and burn" because of this to be rather disgusting.

Were talking about peoples lives here. You're basically saying that hundreds of people should loose their jobs, be unable to support their families because you DON'T GET SINGLE PLAYER.

Quite frankly I find it sociopathic to think that

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

According to Michael, this is no the case. No gutting of anything. Merely unwillingness to reveal the "secrets of the universe".

That was about releasing full blown private server, not offline mode as originally in inception.

 

[Owsla]

Sometimes modding can be the life of a game but I never thought this for Elite Dangerous. Also it seemed clear that modding would never be supported. However I do appeciate that for those hoping for that this is a blow.
Off-line play was repeatedly sold as a stand-out feature though.
May I add that this thread has been enormously civilized considering it is a response to what amounts to a massive u-turn by FD on a major feature. Congratulations to most posters. My respect for this community has grown a lot by reading this thread.

I think originally The developers expressed an intention to implement modding tools for ED in the future.
idk.. I've just had a feeling since beta 2 that it would be a huge positive for ED.

I funded Elite for sentimental reason, basically the memory of my gaming days when I was young.
I just hope they aren't struggling with the project they have undertaken.... With announcements such as this, I have a feeling they are.. and are under a degree of stress.

Perhaps my comments related to modding are a way of saying... there's a whole community out there that can help and be involved with the creation and future of this game.
I believe developers can have faith in that community, just as we place our faith in Frontier Developments.

It was that 2 way aspect that I could see working for ED.. so this announcement does trouble me a little... though I wish them all the best with the game, and it's future.

 

[Gin Jones]

My favourite quote from a backer is

"I paid for a game, not a game client"

 

[Melchy]

I've no real issue as such with the solo game requiring an internet connection for dynamic content updates, this is the mode I was going to play in anyway rather than completely offline. Where I do have an issue is with my ability to play the game in say 2 years time when the servers no longer exist. Some of us are still playing Elite, what 30 years after its release. As things stand it doesn't sound like we'll be playing Elite : Dangerous for anywhere near as long. I'd like to think there would be a way to patch in some sort of offline game when the inevitable sever closure happens.

 

[philux]

Right I'm going to call it a night here.

But I think this image can pretty sum up this whole thread for me

ED isn't an MMO in the classical sense of social in-game communities and frequent interaction with other players. That kind of advertising just leads to more unsatisfied customers.

 

[cherbert]

I think this interview is very enlightening about DB/FD:
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/archive/b5081501.htm

Same goes for the overall FAQ and table of who wrote what in elite:
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/faq.htm

I've also previously posted about the following points, but won't harp on and on:

- ED Now features negatives of both networking models. P2P for multiplayer (stuttering, instance delays, poor connectivity, poor reliability) yet still uses client-server model for its game logins and market data thus can't be detached from servers like other P2P network applications. Because it uses client-server for logins and market data, this means it relies on the servers for any usage at all. Thus you only realise the negatives of P2P, and the negatives of client server. Instead of just using one to avoid the negatives of the other. It's insanity.

- Multiplayer (both Online/Open and Online/Solo) have major, major problems. online/Solo still features mission completion bugs, very poor server latency (the service uses AWS and doesn't have many geolocations for the service). This was due to cost reasons. This means for the average player, you will still get stuttering dropping out of SC near planets and stations (loading market data, contact information, orbital data, amongst other things from the server). There are also some core design problems here related to the way the client deals with server latency. It is in short, terribly low performing. As a way of comparison, online/Open is no better, in fact it's much worse. The P2P code is really bugged and features things like extreme FPS drops around busy areas, extreme FPS drops and stutters transitioning instances, approaching stations, when entering detection range of other contacts, etc. Look at your netlogs and see the dramatic object ownership communications going on. witness the 25mb+ logs. The security issue of listing the computer name and IP of all connected peers. The low number of people per 'island/instance'. the way the core 'huge universe' gaming feature the game is advertised on is really misleading in terms of the game play area actually being divided into endless segments of nearly identical 'islands' / instances. There is very poor levels of documentation, support and troubleshooting tools for network config, with the most effective configuration (enabling uPNP and/or setting a static UDP port to use for the game) requiring manual XML file changes and manual monitoring on your router. Even basic torrent clients will do a UDP port flow test and attempt the uPNP mapping automatically/by default. In short, its an absolute shambles. For many reasons previously mention P2P causes a set of multiplayer design flaws.

Thus
- When you factor in the massive problems with Online/Open and the significant problems of Online/Solo, it makes the decision to drop Offline mode even harder to stomach.

These other factors come into play in people's frustration here:
- It's highly unethical to run a KS campaign and in the 4 weeks or so before launch, pull a key feature that many backers were specifically backing for.
- It's highly unethical to take pre-orders and advertise a game on two basis: multiplayer excellence and offline play ability, only to fail to deliver on the first and remove entirely the second.
- It's extremely unethical to release the information in a vaguely worded paragraph in the game verse newsletter..
- It's very unusual and dissatisfying behaviour to have the game developer in the forums attempting to defend the decision with nonsense comments like 'It can't be done offline' (Despite all previous iterations of Elite featuring fully offline proc gen universes and missions and economies)
- Using the argument that providing the server would 'unlock the secrets of the universe' is equally nonsensical and just insulting to gamers, developers and other professionals in this industry around the world. Server software is provided in the form of compiled binaries and can be heavily protected through a variety of methods. Even if not, its irrespective, game servers are part of the gaming world and if you can't even detach your game client from the game server software , then don't cry foul that you also can't release the game server itself. that's just talking nonsense and hoping the majority of customers won't know enough to pull you up on it. Wrong.
- To state coldly 'refunds on a case by case basis', given the above, is not good enough. It's a further example of the unbelievably bad behaviour of this developer.

I don't like to be negative but I won't ever be purchasing or backing any future FD games. I would also like to point out FD have been an independent games company for some time and in theory, shouldn't even need a KS campaign to make a profitable game, but I won't entirely lament the KS process for these guys as at least it gets some community involvement. Not that it matters here, as FD just stomp on the community with serious attitude.

If you read the newsletter, its like the company lawyer wrote it as a press release, where people have to exercise the ability to read between the lines of the non committal statements that are designed to reduce responsibility and liability, with almost no clarity. The forum posts that followed are better but are essentially a pack of lies about the reasons behind it. If those are the real reasons, what on earth is going on with the design/coding process for this to come to light 4 weeks from release? utter nonsense.


Given the massive number of technical problems, both client, server, and P2P, this 'game' currently faces, the ridiculous release date, the terrible attitude of the developer, the multiple, many broken KS promises, the completely obvious and rather pathetic attempt to placate people with additional ships and a bubbly tone to the newsletter despite obvious set of negative announcements, you have to wonder just how big a mistake was made backing this dev to the tune of 7.5 million.

I like the progress in a general sense, but i was seriously relying on offline mode to get me away from having to:
- compete with people that have 20 hours per day to mine/discover systems, by playing offline, and playing at my pace, even close undiscovered systems could be a new discovery and worth credits and worth playing for me. now i have to (even in online/solo) compete with many other much more time-rich players and this makes competing very difficult and the game more boring
- deal with the server latency, the P2P networking problems, and the hug bugs throughout this game the networking creates
- deal with the fairly broken 'dynamic background simulation'. one assumed offline mode would have a more static/normal method for locating ship upgrades, scheduling missions and the pricing model for items. ill take static, predictable any day over the nonsense systems in place right now. also why should i have to worry about whether 400 other people bought frame shift drive upgrades close to the core systems? why should i have to spend 4 hours SC'ing and jumping to far remote systems that people haven't purchased from? i dont even really believe FD that this is how the market is working right now. seems more random/very boring and limited. on top of that, they have no credibility at all anymore, so i want proof of almost everything they say from here in or i believe nothing.


DB comments about evil publishers in the past forcing buggy releases and pay-to-play and all this other stuff, but i see now its just lip service designed to appear populous and garner support. Behaving in the way FD/DB have in this manner is just atrocious, and i feel really sorry for the DB/Frontier apologists who feel the need/urge to defend the indefensible here. You should pick your battles and go find some other underdog to back. This isn't appropriate behaviour for a company and this is certainly not the way to treat a loyal fanbase of customers.


I hope they lose a lot of pledges, backers and customers on the basis of all of this since its really, really terrible stuff. I want Elite to remain playable offline, I want the realism sacrificing slightly for the sake of fun, this is a game after all. If we had a version of the SIMS that only played in real time and took as much time as real life to do the same things as in real life, one would start to question the point of the game, the same goes for Elite, the distances involved and realism involved is great in some ways, but in other ways, i want to have a bit of fun, and like Ian Bell's comments in the original gamespot interview, although its applaudable and aesthetically pleasing to have a realistic universe, there is the flip side of needing to balance that appropriately to ensure the fun factor is not lost. It's a game. it's been stated many times its a game not a simulation, and other sacrifices in the flight model were made to ensure fun, so where is the fun in the mission/faction play, the long distance travel, the MP communications, grouping and missions, the co-play, the PVP models, the interdictions. there is some in there, but its very shallow, and the aesthetic factor of keeping the huge game universe realistic is not currently balanced by a large enough fun factor.

The huge problems detract massively from this 'game' and the decision to drop offline mode, which was the saving grace for many of these shortcomings, is just borderline insanity.

I guess FD are about to find out the hard way people do not appreciate KS campaigners behaving in this unethical way, and loyal, long term gamers do not appreciate being treated in this way, nor their money taking for a product that ultimately is very broken, feature poor and missing basic core components promised all the way through the design and dev cycle.

Incredible. Thank you so much for taking the time to voice this - it contains pretty much everything I have wanted to try and articulate but either failed or didn't know where to start. Thank you. You actually raised some points relating to the benefits of Offline play that I hadn't even considered and my feelings are now stronger regarding the necessity for offline.

 

[the darkwalker]

Loss of future sales. I'm not saying that FD will go under because they'll be missing those sales, but dropping Off-line will cost them a few million in the long run. I know from experience that news of features that are absent goes much faster than news about what's in. In fact, one of the first questions I usually see in discussions amongst my own circle of gamingbuddies is "What isn't there?"

Another thing that's not smart is not realising that a good group of people are here because Star Citizen was not suitable for them (Always online from the start.), and so they opted to back the next best thing. FD offered that one thing that would've set Elite squarely apart, a thing that they could've used to their advantage. The power of having that one little thing over the competition has been sqaundered in my opinion.

Apart from other considerations, FD gave away their advantage. And factor into that the people who are on the fence on whether to buy SC or ED, what do you think they'll go for when the bad press about FD's move gets real traction? FD made the decision for them.

Think a bit longer on the topic. FD didn't just inconvenience a vocal minority, they've hurt themselves more than that they've hurt the off-line crowd. So close to the finish line in a period where good press is worth more than it's weight in gold, they throw sand in their own machinery. I don't understand it all.

fully agree! and i can't still understand their pr decisions, they could "wait after release" or at least wait for it to being developed after a while? i could not see the harm in doing so

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Just want to clarify that SC and "online" still include the ability to host a private server (ie. on your game box). At least at this point in time.

Those plans have changed for some time. That private server will have to be synced with SC servers.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

ED isn't an MMO in the classical sense of social in-game communities and frequent interaction with other players. That kind of advertising just leads to more unsatisfied customers.

ED isn't a game yet. Intent is to provide tools for socializing, they are just not there yet.

 

[Titus Balls]

I find the grandiloquence on the forums that Frontier will "crash and burn" because of this to be rather disgusting.

Were talking about peoples lives here. You're basically saying that hundreds of people should loose their jobs, be unable to support their families because you DON'T GET SINGLE PLAYER. You have maybe lost a few pounds at most.

Quite frankly I find it sociopathic to think that

 

[ecgallagher]

I find the grandiloquence on the forums that Frontier will "crash and burn" because of this to be rather disgusting.

Were talking about peoples lives here. You're basically saying that hundreds of people should loose their jobs, be unable to support their families because you DON'T GET SINGLE PLAYER. You have maybe lost a few pounds at most.

Quite frankly I find it sociopathic to think that

100% agree.

Welcome to the Internet.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Incredible. Thank you so much for taking the time to voice this - it contains pretty much everything I have wanted to try and articulate but either failed or didn't know where to start. Thank you. You actually raised some points relating to the benefits of Offline play that I hadn't even considered and my feelings are now stronger regarding the necessity for offline.

Someone please send this to David Braben's office Registered Delivery.

"online sucks because I wanted offline" isn't very strong argument here. Especially as game is still in development, and his points about networking is very hyperbole. There are lot of issues with networking, but it gets constantly better. Just not very strong arguments at all.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I find the grandiloquence on the forums that Frontier will "crash and burn" because of this to be rather disgusting.

Were talking about peoples lives here. You're basically saying that hundreds of people should loose their jobs, be unable to support their families because you DON'T GET SINGLE PLAYER. You have maybe lost a few pounds at most.

Quite frankly I find it sociopathic to think that

When during Kickstarter people started to demand offline mode with same words and arguments, I felt sick.

People with strong beliefs usually don't care much about everything else but themselves.

 

[Adger Stark]

A bit O/T but how is the AI in the npc,s in solo mode at this moment in time..a real genuine question and any answers will be much appreciated.Thank you

 

[Sargon]

I really don't have the time to read all of the posts, but I backed the project SOLELY on the fact that the game WOULD HAVE SINGLE PLAYER MODE.

So who do I speak to in order to get my money back? I WILL NOT be playing online, I do not care for online gaming. PERIOD.

I'll see if I can do a chargeback based on misrepresentation of product and or false advertising.

 

[ecgallagher]

"online sucks because I wanted offline" isn't very strong argument here. Especially as game is still in development, and his points about networking is very hyperbole. There are lot of issues with networking, but it gets constantly better. Just not very strong arguments at all.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



When during Kickstarter people started to demand offline mode with same words and arguments, I felt sick.

People with strong beliefs usually don't care much about everything else but themselves.

I went a read a bunch of comments on the KS page from Dec. 2012.
People were threatening and rage quitting back then.

 

[kwh]

OK, I think it's time that there was a dispassionate round up of the situation was made:

...

Because the "client" is merely an unintelligent rendering shell creating an off-line version would require creating practically from scratch an equivalent of the back-end server architecture and bolting this into the "client".

If we assume that is true, that's going to mean huge volumes of network traffic, which means no end of problems for anybody with an insufficiently rapid network connection, volumetric data charges or a monthly data cap...

It will also not be a fundamental design change made in the last three days - the lead time on changes of that magnitude would be months not days, so arguably anybody who bought into ED between the decision being taken and it being announced was quite literally defrauded...

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I really don't have the time to read all of the posts, but I backed the project SOLELY on the fact that the game WOULD HAVE SINGLE PLAYER MODE.

So who do I speak to in order to get my money back? I WILL NOT be playing online, I do not care for online gaming. PERIOD.

I'll see if I can do a chargeback based on misrepresentation of product and or false advertising.

It has single player online. You don't see others. Yet you take part of dynamic galaxy.

If that's not for you, see this and apply for refund https://store.zaonce.net/cancellations-returns/